Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Lens

Subject: Re: [OM] Lens
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:51:24 -0800
On 2/20/2017 12:15 PM, Martin Walters wrote:
Moose:
Thanks, again, for all that information, which gave me lots to think about.

Some comments:
The 12-100 seems to be really, really good. Not sure, however, if I could ever justify the cost (size, I assume I would get used to).

I hadn't been checking the E-M5 updates for a while now. Before 2.2, the only improvements were not of interest (e.g., video performance, 40-150 pro), so I'd left them alone. Obviously, I will do the 2.2 update when I get home in April.

I looked at my custom menus, and couldn't find anything relating to IBIS or OIS priority. From memory, I thought I could only use IBIS.

My memory is of having that option, but could be faulty, as I've used at least a couple of Pens that do have the option over the same time frame. Or it may have been added, but not announced, in a later firmware update.

I've never tried an E-M5-2, so I was blissfully ignorant of its improvements.

That would be the least of some great ones. :-)

Who knows, maybe an E-M5-3 will be in my future.......

Mine, too, I hope. Got my fingers crossed for the 20 MP sensor, speed, IBIS, AF and other improvements of the E-M1 II, the faster HR Mode they mentioned when HR first happened, and whatever other tricks they may have up their sleeves. Fall this year too soon? Hope not!


While I usually use the camera outside, dim/dark/night situations are not uncommon. With that in mind, I do have some faster primes (17, 45, 75) so I'm generally covered (unless it's wet).

We have similar solutions.

I also recognize that the 2.8 zooms may be marginal for these same dim/dark/night conditions, compared to primes. However, at the moment, they or the 12-100 are really the only way to go for WR lenses

Ya got me with QR. Working Reality? Widely Restricted? Holey Volley? What a 
Ride!

for the FLs I'm interested in. It took me a while to realize that the 12-50 was quite acceptable (given the many criticisms online).

Odd business, in a way. It seems that I've taken ~13,700 exposures* with mine, about 5,100 in 'macro' mode. Yes, I've been disappointed with some, but usually, when I check, attributable to factors other than the glass itself. In direct comparison with test charts with the 12-100, it looks pretty second rate.

And yet, I've made a lot of images with it that I think are technically excellent. Part of that may be that so much of what I photograph has no fine detail both in the focal plane and outside the central area, so it would be soft anyway. And that's where the biggest test chart differences are, edges and corners. Then again, I did the testing in HR Mode, about 50 MP eq., whereas all those pix were taken at 16 MP.

Another part may be that there are so many factors other than the glass alone that affect the final image. Yet another could be that my copy has been through enough use and moderate knocks, etc. over 11+ years that it isn't what it once was. (Aug 2005? Really?)

Whatever the factors, it's time to move on.

The Panny 35-100/2.8 is not particularly large (360g, 3.9 inches long) and doesn't extend (12-50 is 211g and 3.26 inches long, by way of comparison).

My extreme dislike of changing lenses in the field is such that I have no interest in two zooms to cover the moderate Wide to moderate Tele range, so I've never considered that lens. Given a test before this thread, I'd guess I would not have known it existed.

I also realize that the Panny 12-60 will be here soon; however, it will only have an extra 10mm of reach compared to the 12-50, which doesn't appeal very much.

If anything like the 12-100, it will be a much better lens. Based on Panny's recent Leica badges lenses, I expect that to be so. Now that I've "been to Parsee", I don't think I would be happy "down on the farm" again. So my 12-50 needs replacement. The only question is between 12-100 and 12-60.

There is evidence to suggest that close focus will be at the long end, and it is speed as close to that of the 12-50, without a special 'Macro" mode. I worked happily for quite a while with a gap between 12-50 and 75-300. With the 75-300 replaced with a 100-400, I found the gap annoying. It's possible I would find a 60-100 gap OK again.


I've also read about the purple artifacts when using (some) Panny lenses on Oly cameras. So far though, I've not read of that issue with the 35-100/2.8.

Mike has kept closer watch (sans µ4/3 gear - so far) on that than I. So I'd go 
with his post.


Totally undecided, though not confused (I hope)

Is that better than confused, but decided??

Huh? Moose

* Recent numbers start to become meaningless, as Focus Bracketing burns up non-mechanical exposures in chunks at a push of the button.

--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz